Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 2, 2016

11086022 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111086,022 0312212005
92724 7590
HONEYWELL/FAEGRE
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
09/07/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eal Lee
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0009761-4015 USA 7611
EXAMINER
BERMAN, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
DL-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
patentdocketing@faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EAL LEE, NICOLE TRUONG, ROBERT PRATER, and
NORMSAND 1
Appeal2015-002570
Application 11/086,022
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 4--7, 10, 11, and 30-39. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to coils utilized in vapor
deposition apparatuses. E.g., Spec. 1: 5; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced
1 According to the Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Honeywell
International Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002570
Application 11/086,022
below from page 12 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief (some
paragraph breaks and indentation added):
1. A coil assembly for utilization in a vapor deposition system
compnsmg:
at least one metal or metal alloy vapor deposition system coil
compnsmg
a length of greater than 3 0 cm,
a height of less than about 7 6 mm,
an inside edge,
an outside edge, and
a maximum thickness of less than about 5 mm,
wherein the thickness of the coil is measured as the distance
between the inside edge and the outside edge and
wherein the thickness of a first portion of the coil is reduced by
at least 20% as compared to the maximum thickness of the coil,
and
wherein at least part of the thickness of the coil comprises an
angle from the inside edge to the outside edge of the coil to form
a top edge having a point and wherein the outside edge of the
coil is vertical up to the point of the top edge.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4--7, 10, 11, and 30-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Subramani et al. (US 6,254,746 Bl, issued
July 3, 2001) in view of Ishii (US 5,683,537, issued Nov. 4, 1997).2
The Examiner finds that Subramani discloses a coil meeting the
limitations of claim 1 except that Subramani "is silent as to a reduction in
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claim 40 under 35
U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. Ans. 6.
2
Appeal2015-002570
Application 11/086,022
thickness and a pointed shape" of the coil. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that
Ishii discloses a vapor deposition apparatus including "a focus ring" that has
"a vertical edge and slanted edge meeting at a point, thus having a reduction
in thickness from base to top, to allow for its placement within the chamber
without interrupting the line of sight between a workpiece and
deposition/plasma source." Id. The Examiner concedes that the ring of Ishii
is different from the coil of Subramani, but relies on Ishii "for its disclosure
of knowledge in the art that components within a plasma processing
chamber ... can be angled." Id. at 10. The Examiner concludes that "it
would have been obvious ... to include a coil, as disclosed by Subramani,
with a shaped [sic] disclosed by Ishii, because this allows for the use of a
ring or coil with limited interruption of a deposition process." Id. at 3--4.
Largely for reasons set forth by the Appellants, we are not persuaded
by the Examiner's rationale. Subramani discloses an apparatus that
addresses the problem of "particle shedding" by recessing the coil outwardly
of the pedestal and substrate, and by use of a dark space shield to shield the
coil from sputtered material. Subramani at Abstract, 2:59---62. A goal of
Subramani is to "minimize the deposition of target material onto the coil."
Id. at 2:46-51. While Subramani recognizes that coil shape is relevant to the
particle shedding problem, see id. at 2:9-19, Subramani does not teach that
the problem of particle shedding should be solved by changing the shape of
the coil; as noted above, Subramani teaches recessing and shielding the coil.
To the extent that Subramani discusses shape, it indicates that "smooth
gently curved" surfaces are "relatively easy to clean and protect[] the interior
of the chamber from being deposited with the sputtering material," and that
"a coil and any supporting structure" possessing "relatively sharply curved
3
Appeal2015-002570
Application 11/086,022
surfaces ... would be more difficult to clean." Id. Subramani teaches that
"smooth gently curved" surfaces "would tend to shed fewer particles" than
"sharply curved surfaces." Id.
Subramani' s preference for "smooth gently curved" surfaces conflicts
with claim 1 's recitation of a coil comprising "a top edge having a point and
wherein the outside edge of the coil is vertical up to the point of the top
edge." As reproduced below from page 4 of the Appeal Brief, the
Appellants' Figure 2 depicts an embodiment of the invention:
Figure 2 shows coils having a top edge with point 240 and beveled edge 230.
Consistent with the language of claim 1, those embodiments include edges
and points that appear to be more analogous to the "sharply curved surfaces"
criticized by Subramani than to the "smooth gently curved" surfaces to
which Subramani attributes desirable benefits.
The Examiner nevertheless relies on Ishii as providing motivation to
modify Subramani' s coils to include the edges and points recited by claim 1.
In particular, the Examiner relies on Ishii's Figure 1, a portion of which is
reproduced below:
4
Appeal2015-002570
Application 11/086,022
Figure 1 depicts a sectional view of a plasma processing apparatus with
annular focus ring 21. The entirety of Ishii' s disclosure concerning the
annular focus rim.! is renroduced below: .__, '"
An annular focus ring 21 is disposed on the peripheral portion of
the rest section 31 to surround the wafer W. The focus ring 21 is
made of an insulating material that does not attract reactive ions,
so that the reactive ions are effectively attracted by the wafer W
inside the focus ring 21.
Ishii at 3:53-57.
The Examiner identifies no teaching in Ishii suggesting that the shape
of focus ring 21 might be relevant to the shape of a deposition coil. On the
contrary, focus ring 21 is "made of an insulating material," while the coil of
Subramani is made of conductive material. See Subramani at 9:66----67. The
coil of claim 1 is likewise conductive. See Claim 1 (reciting a "metal or
metal alloy" coil). Moreover, focus ring 21 "does not attract reactive ions,"
5
Appeal2015-002570
Application 11/086,022
while Subramani contemplates that its coil will attract sputtered material and
therefore seeks to shield the coil from the material. See Subramani at 2:59-
62. The Appellants' disclosure likewise indicates that the coil of claim 1
will attract sputtered material, and its shape is defined to resist accumulation.
See Spec. 9:3-17.
A rejection based on obviousness requires "articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."
In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). On this record, we are not
persuaded that the shape of an element (item 21 of Ishii Fig. 1) that is
apparently unrelated to, and serves a different function than, Subramani's
coils, would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
the shape of Subramani' s coils, particularly in light of Subramani' s
preference for "smooth gently curved" surfaces and criticism of "sharply
curved surfaces." Accordingly, we must reverse the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1.
The Examiner's analysis with respect to the remaining claims on
appeal also relies on the combination of Subramani and Ishii, and does not
remedy the error identified above. Namely, we are not persuaded that Ishii's
teachings concerning focus ring 21 would have motivated a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of Subramani' s coils.
Accordingly, we likewise reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 4--7,
10, 11, and 30-39.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4--7, 10, 11, and
30-39.
REVERSED
6